Landshark

If I had wanted to set the bar low, then I would have used one of the clowns at Airhead America as a measuring stick. Maybe former Majority Report cohost Janeane Garofalo, for example. I could post some of her comments about black conservative talk show host Larry Elder, but what's the point in triggering the BGP word violation filter or risking suspension just to make a point? There are far more rude hosts than Sean Hannity on both the left and on the right. I agree with you that Rush is not one of them, but on the scale of rudeness, Hannity barely registers. Michael Savage will cut callers off if he suspects that they are on a cell phone or if he is just in a bad mood - whether they agree with him on an issue or not. Unless he has changed his format, I don't think that Al Franken even takes listeners' calls on his show - a good decision in light of his anger management issues. A good host is a good listener and Franken is neither. Of the hosts that I have listened to for more than a few hours, I would rank Michael Medved as the most polite host, probably the most intelligent, and the most skilled debater. Medved does not "play a weak schedule" either. He regularly invites some very strong liberal advocates onto his shows. I enjoy real debates of political issues, but I must be in the minority because I can only listen to Medved's replays if I wake up before 5 AM. An honorable mention for most polite host goes to Laura Ingraham, who also tops my list of favorite female lawyers/authors/talk show hosts/cancer survivors.

You are probably too young to remember O'Reilly when he just reported the news. I am not. You may also be unaware that O'Reilly provided a spirited defense of Dan Rather during the fraudulent documents controversy that ultimately cost Rather his job. Liberals may wish that O'Reilly was a conservative talk show host, but the fact of the matter is that he is a capitalist and would probably swing quite a bit to the left if he were working for CNN or one of the other liberal news networks.

The only result they need is positive media coverage of an endless string of investigations. Democrats will just use the next two years following the same strategy that worked for them Tuesday. Attack Bush. If they were interested in getting their own legislation passed quickly, then they would have detailed a legislative agenda and presented it during the campaign. They want to control judicial appointments and improve their chances of taking control of all three branches of government in 2008. Given the characters that will be chairing the major committees, Democrats will be running a real risk following this strategy. Regardless of who the target is, watching politicians give 15 minute speeches and then not allowing witnesses adequate time to respond tends to generate some sympathy - and not for the windbags. Calling Congressional hearings "hearings" has gotten to be a joke. Congress people are anything but good listeners, and are often chatting or checking messages while witnesses are testifying, if they bother to hang around at all following their own "opening remarks." Democrats are not worried about vetoes, they figure they win either way - and either way their relentless, bitter attacks on Bush will not subside. They will merely be dancing with the one that brung them to the dance.

Conyers is a total idiot. A conspiracy nut and an inarticulate nutjob at that. I detest Pelosi, but I think she is too smart to let the cameras rest on Conyers any more than absolutely necessary. Waxman will be the point man in trying to extort cash for Democratic constituents. I do agree with you on this rare occastion, however, this group of Democrats are certainly not above using blackmail against President Bush.

:laugh: One can always hope!

Congratulations, Rams! :thumb: You have my support all the way to the carpet now that Pikeville is out of the picture. I think NCC is in for a battle next week.

I know what you meant, and I agree. I was just adding my 2 cents, not disputing yours.:thumb: I think any JC opponent is going to have to give a lot up to hold Grim in check, so even when his numbers are down he is going to be a big factor in any JC win.

The only thing better would be an audio clip of Rockcastle's announcer predicting a blowout win. Seriously, I thank the Ashland station for webcasting the Tomcat games and Dickie for doing such a good job identifying both Ashland playmakers and its opponent's playmakers. Parents, grandparents, etc. who can't make it to the road games really appreciate their commitment to high school sports.:thumb: (Why can't WSIP do the same for Johnson Central sports and webcast its games? :irked: )

They didn't exactly win without Grim. He did deliver the game winner to Taylor and had some good runs down the stretch. I don't think that any team will shutdown Grim without opening an opportunity for one of JC's other weapons. The Golden Eagles just need to keep executing when they go to Plan B or Plan C like they did tonight.

You're right. Dickie's not my problem. He's yours. :thumb: But...please keep me posted and tell me the next time that Ashland wins a district championship and Dickie predicts that they don't stand a chance in their next game. Not that I doubt your assessment of the objectivity of Dickie Martin, but I would like to see it demonstrated in such a case.:lol:

When you deliver a sneering prediction just minutes after the team that beat your team twice to the effect that JC has no chance next week, you have no class. Will it occur to him that he just smacked his beloved Tomcats in the face as he belittled the Golden Eagles? Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but I somehow doubt that good ole Dickie would have proclaimed that Rockcastle was a shoe in next week if the Tomcats had pulled this game out. He should think a little bit during his commercial breaks before keying up the mike after a loss.

I can't say enough about how Coach Hart handles himself in his post game comments. Dickie's sidekick started rattling on on and about how bad the refs were in the first game and how they were even worse tonight, and Coach Hart declined to chime in and refocused the interview on how proud he was of his players and how they had opportunities to win and just came up a big play or two short:thumb: . Ashland has a keeper in Leon Hart, IMO.

Sorry to quote myself, but just to clarify, there is nothing wrong with Dickie predicting a Rockcastle win next week, but the timing, tone, and manner in which he made the comment was inexcusable. I wish that I had a clip to post.

On a sour note, Dickie says that there is no way the Golden Eagles will beat Rockcastle next week. In other words, he just belittled both teams that played tonight. Dickie does not do much to promote goodwill for the excellent Tomcat program and its classy coach. To his credit, he does a great job of letting you know who made the plays on both sides of the ball, but there is no excuse for his classless commentary.

Great game, Tomcats! Hopefully Rockcastle will not prepare for the Golden Eagles as well as Coach Hart and his staff prepared Ashland for tonight's game. I really expected Matney to run something for Taylor or Welch with time running down. Tommy Taylor has been overshadowed this season by Grim's gaudy numbers, but he really rose to the occasion tonight. This game should answer questions about whether Johnson Central would wilt under pressure in a nail biter. Both teams made big plays under a lot of pressure tonight. Again, congratulations to both teams on an outstanding display of high school football!:thumb:

B97fm.com

How so? I don't care much for O'Reilly either, but it is hard to be more petty than to launch an attack a competitor's punting record as a collegian and attempt to make it a major news story. People forget that unlike many talk show hosts, Olbermann included, O'Reilly was a respected newsman before becoming a blowhard talk show host. Olbermann was a sarcastic blowhard sports guy and now he is a bitter blowhard talk show host who constantly attacks everybody in his time slot and everybody in his profession who don't tilt to the left. Olbermann is the perfect match for Rahm Emmanuel, Howard Dean, and the rest of the Democrats' yapping attack dogs. Maybe they will make him Press Secretary if they win the White House in 2008 and will give him the large audience that he believes he so richly deserves.:lol:

Morris has never liked Ms. Clinton but is still fond of Bill.

I meant to say: There is no logical reason to assume that losing the Iraq War will not increase the chances of another attack. There is very little upside to claiming defeat in any war, regardless of what you call it.

That really is not an accurate characterization of what Rush said. If you read the transcript carefully and objectively, he made the "carrying the water" comment in the context that he was tired of making excuses to conservatives for people who ran as conservatives and governed like liberals. Like me, he saw a Republican Congress and President as the lesser of evils. The greater evil won, so there is a real need to reform the Republican Party and stop acting defensively. Rush will be a part of that process because of his huge, well informed and politically active audience. Now that Republicans have lost control of Congress and Bush has hoisted the white flag on several major issues and is a lame duck anyway, Rush will spare nobody from sharp attacks for straying from core conservative positions. IMO, conservatives lost control of Congress when Republicans let Newt Gingrich walk away. Limbaugh must be the most often quoted out of context entertainer alive. The guy is on the air 15 hours a week and some unfortunate liberal must either have to listen to him or read through those transcripts to find short quotes to misrepresent his positions. I get frustrated at Rush's Republican-boosterism myself and I rarely listen to him (but used to be a semi-regular ditto-head), but I have listened to him enough to know that nobody, with the possible exception of Gingrich, does a better job of articulating American conservatives' core shared values. Rush is much more entertaining with liberals in power, IMO. It amazes me how people can defend Olbermann's hateful diatribes, yet characterize conservative talk radio as "hate radio." Rush is one of the most courteous hosts on the air.

Democrats could do worse -- and have.

I don't expect a crash. I expect a slow decline as the impact of applied liberal economic theories set in. Increased taxes and increased spending, along with weakened national security will take its toll on the market eventually. People seem to forget that the 9/11 attacks were planned during a Democratic administration before there was an Iraq War and before we toppled the Afghani government. The conditions abroad, even with a capitulation in Iraq, will not be much different than they were in the 90's. There is no logical reason to assume that losing the Iraq War will increase the chances of another attack. That will wear on Wall Street over the next two years.

Olbermann doesn't limit his attacks to his more successfull competitors. He recently named another competitor Glenn Beck (who has a show on CNN Headline News), his third place "Worst Person in the World" award." I don't particularly enjoy Beck's show because he is more moderate in many ways and spends much less time discussing political issues than other conservative talkers. Olbermann is a very insecure and unstable human being, IMO. Who can forget his "wide left" attack on Bill O'Reilly's college football career as a punter? If Olbermann's pathetic excuse for a talk show ever reaches the audience that Rush reaches then we will all be in big trouble as a nation.

Okay, I have substituted Democrats for my Republican senators who conflicted with HHSDad's selection. I haven't found a way to look at other people's teams yet, but I didn't see these listed on the teams posted here. If I have drafted somebody who has already been signed, please let me know. With the exception of Joe-Mo, I wouldn't be sorry to cut anybody from my roster. Upper Senator: Joe Lieberman Dianne Feinstein Lower Senator: Mark Pryor Ken Salazar

Al Gore has "reinvented" himself several times since he was worthy fodder for comedians. He has gained weight, lost weight, grown a beard, shaved his beard, and totally changed his speech patterns. He now has the cadence of an old time evangelical preacher and is prone to injecting a few screams when delivering a speech. Gore is a much more engaging speaker now with the same nutty ideas. That alone should make him a serious primary candidate in the Democratic Party.